It is supremely ironic that the American Revolution hailed by many of today's libertarians and so-called conservatives as the great breakthrough for Liberty is the every event that destroyed the largely privatized social order of colonial America, in which private bodies performed many of the functions now performed by the State governments. The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, describes the rise of big government in the new States after the Revolution and because of it:

"Almost at a stroke the Revolution destroyed all the earlier talk of paternal or maternal government, filial allegiance and mutual contractual obligations between rulers and ruled..... As sovereign expressions of the popular will, these new republican governments acquired an autonomous public power their monarchical predecessors never possessed or even claimed.... The republican state governments sought to assert their newly enhanced public power in direct and unprecedented ways-doing for themselves what they had earlier commissioned private persons to do. They carved out exclusively public spheres of action and responsibility where none had existed before. They now drew up plans for improving everything from trade and commerce to roads and waterworks and helped to create a science of political economy for Americans. And they formed their own public organizations with paid professional staffs supported by tax money, not private labor.... The power of the state to take private property was now viewed as virtually unlimited--as long as the property was taken for exclusively public purposes." [1]

If the teaching of the Church were heeded, something like the "corporatist" society of Christendom, the remnants of which were evident in Protestant colonial America, would reemerge. One historian admitted that in Catholic social order the king "possessed certain customary rights, but could not define his own powers at will, or overturn the customary rights of the people or of the various subsidiary bodies of society." [2]

The return of subsidiary social bodies to provide what are now governmental services would be the natural consequence of respecting subsidiarity. And, accordingly, state taxation, like federal taxation, would be dramatically reduced, with any revenues devoted predominantly to the maintenance of essential public services, police and fire departments, roads, bridges, and parks.

The greatest tax reduction would result from returning education to where it belongs: under the control of the family. The enemies of Christ and His Church have always sought to impose public education on the masses, especially in Catholic France, where Masonic politicians battled for nearly a century to establish a public educational system. Thomas Jefferson dreamt of a public school system in America and saw a secular public education like that at his University of Virginia, the first university in Western history with no integrated theology curriculum, to be essential for the formation of citizens who would "think republican thoughts" and "support the cause of liberty as he understood it." [3]

Knowing precisely what the proponents of public education have always intended, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX condemns as one of the signal errors of our time the proposition that "The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people... should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age." [4]

Accordingly, in the Catholic state we are sketching, state and local taxes would not finance a public education system. It would simply disappear.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 2018. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations becomes available.

Key:

﻿Diocese﻿: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including FSSP).

﻿FSSP﻿: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent﻿: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including SSPX).

﻿SSPX﻿: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).

​Under Catholic teaching on "subsidiarity," a central governments excessive regulatory intrusions into local governments and the lives of individuals would be ended. To recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo, "it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." [1]

Under the principle of subsidiarity, a true federalism could develop along Catholic lines, and when this principle is applied to the United States the several States could achieve true autonomy and even the ability to incorporate Gospel principles into civil law. The result would be similar to what existed in the Old Swiss Confederacy with its thirteen cantons, which were allegedly supposed to have been a model for the American Republic that succeeded the thirteen colonies.

Further, in keeping with the Church's teaching on just taxation, the federal income and inheritance taxes would be drastically reduced if not abolished entirely. As Pius XI taught, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII: "Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. 'For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.'" [2]

Federal corporate taxation, if it still existed, would provide generous incentives to treat employees as more than production factors, including such measures as a direct dollar-for-dollar tax credit for corporate profits invested in profit-sharing plans, medical savings plans, and so forth. Federal revenues would be devoted to legitimate federal purposes: the national defense and the maintenance of national public works, to the extent these are not returned to the jurisdiction of the States in keeping with subsidiary function.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15, 2018. DISCLAIMER.

Key:

﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control and approval of the local diocese or bishop. ﻿﻿﻿FSSP﻿﻿: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

﻿﻿Independen﻿t﻿: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop.

﻿﻿SSPX﻿﻿: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​

​​Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei wrote that one of the "chief duties" or rulers was to "favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule." [1]

Ideally the State and the Church must be united. Blessed Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors condemns the proposition that the "Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." [2] Pope Saint Pius X taught:

"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. - Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur."He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error." [3]

Msgr. John A. Ryan wrote:

The State should officially recognize the Catholic religion as the religion of the commonwealth: accordingly it should invite the blessing and the ceremonial participation of the Church for certain important functions, such as the opening of legislative sessions, the erection of public buildings, etc., and delegate its officials to attend certain of the more important festival celebrations of the Church; it should recognize and sanction the laws of the Church; and it should protect the rights of the Church, and the religious as well as the other rights of the Church's members. [4]

The above rule is not absolute. It applies to a state where the overwhelming majority of the population is Catholic. [5] Where Catholics are in the minority the state does not have to give official recognition to the Catholic faith and in any event any attempt to do so may be met with civil unrest. [6] Certainly such a condition exists in the present day United States. However, if conditions change then the "people would do wrong by voting against governmental recognition of the true religion..." [7]

An example of a legitimate law which favors the true religion might look is the Spanish Charter of 13 July 1945 (Fuero de los Espanoles). Article 6 of the Charter stated:

1. The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.

2. No-one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic religion. [8]

Unfortunately Spain later changed its law to separate the Church from the state. After the death of the Spanish leader General Francisco Franco the new government adopted a constitution which decreed that there will be no State religion. [9]

However some countries today still give the Church official recognition as the religion of the state. One such country is the Dominican Republic located in the Carribean. On 16 June 1954 representatives from the Dominican Republic and the Holy See signed an agreement called a concordat. Article I of the concordat stated the following:

"The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the Religion of the Dominican Republic, and shall enjoy the rights and prerogatives due to it under Divine and Canon Law. [10]

This concordat was challenged in 2006 by a protestant group as being a violation of the Dominican constitution's guarantee of "freedom of conscience and religion." But in 2008 the Dominican Supreme Court rejected this challenge and upheld the concordat by a 15-2 decision. [11]

The Dominican republic later continued to uphold the laws of God in its constitution when it amended its constitution on 21 April 2009 to protect the innocent and the sanctity of the family. Article 30 of the new constitution guaranteed the right to life from the moment of conception until death. [12] Article 44 of the new constitution defined the family as the fundamental unit of society and paragraph 1 of that same article defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. [13] This constitution was instrumental in stopping an attempt to amend the Dominican Republic's criminal code to permit abortions if a "pregnant woman's life". In that case a Dominican Court blocked the law after they backed a complaint by a pro-life group that argued the attempt to permit abortions in such circumstances violated the consitution's right to life provision. [14]

[1] Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) p 6.

[2] Syllabus, number 55.

[3] Pius X, Encyclical Vehementor Nos (1906) p 3.

[4] M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty 30 (1992).

[8] M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty 275 (1992).

[9] Ibid 276.

[10] "Trujillo's Concordat (1954)." Concordat Watch-Dominican Republic. Concordat Watch. Web. 10 May 2018. [CKLC comment: This article and website are hostile to the Church and concordats with the Church in general.]

[12] Hoffman, Matthew Cullinan. "Dominican Republic Enshrines Right to Life in its Constitution." Life Site News. LifeSiteNews.com. 22 April 2009. Web. 16 May 2018.

[13] "Dominican Constitution Amended in Line with Church doctrines." Concordat Watch-Dominican Republic. Concordat Watch. Web. 16 May 2018. [CKLC comment: This article and website are hostile to the Church and concordats with the Church in general.]

[14] The Associated Press. "Dominican Republic: Court Blocks an Abortion Law." World Briefing. New York Times. 3 December 2015. Web. 16 May 2018.By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​

​While a monarchy may be, at least in theory, the best form of government a monarch could become a tyrant and his government could turn into a tyranny which is the worst of all governments. Thomas Aquinas wisely wrote that "[j]ust as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst." [1] Thus the Angelic doctor indicated that it may be prudent to temper a monarchy with elements of the other forms of government in order to safeguard against a potential tyranny and fulfill man's needs. [2]

Some contemporary thinkers have latched onto this idea of a mixed or tempered form of government as justification for the American constitutional system and they may have a point. The federal government is structured with three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. The executive branch may be considered the monarchical branch as it is ruled by one man-the President. The legislature may be considered the branch ruled by many individuals as there are a total of 535 congressman in the legislature (100 senators and 435 representatives) and they are elected by the people of their states and congressional districts. And the judicial may be considered the branch ruled by the few thus hopefully becoming an aristocracy.

Unfortunately-and apparently more often than not-the American government functions unjustly. Presidents have forced the Church and her institutions to have health insurance plans that fund contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs and refused to sign laws limiting abortions. Congress has passed a massive universal healthcare system run by the federal government which permits funding of abortions and the Supreme Court has struck down laws against abortion, contraception, and same sex "marriages".

Furthermore professor Brian McCall of the University of Oklahoma College of Law has dissented from the idea that the United States system of government is a real mixed form of government. He writes:

"[T]he idea of a monarchy in a government is much more than a central executive figure such as a president. One of the benefits of a monarch is that his governing power is more obviously seen as proceeding from God. He is not beholden to an electoral cycle or constant change of office. One of the main roles a monarch can play in a mixed form of government is to be a conscience standing outside the realm of electoral politics who can act as a guardian of the divine and natural law when the few or the many may attempt to pervert the common good. The presidency of the United States is not and has never been a monarchy thus understood. America may at some point in its history been close to an aristocracy or a polity (although personally I think it has mostly been an oligarchy or a democracy), but it has never been a monarchy in any way." [3]

​With this in mind a monarchy in an ideal Catholic mixed government should be more than a mere executive governor like a President, Chancellor, or Prime Minister who can be removed by an election but someone who can maintain his or her office for life.

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​

​However, while government may take the form of either a polity, aristocracy, or monarchy they are not all equally good. Monarchy is the best. This was stated by Pope Pius VI after the King of France-Louis XVI-was executed by the French Revolutionaries in 1793:

The most Christian King, Louis XVI, was condemned to death by an impoius conspiracy and this judgment was carried out. We shall recall to you in a few words the ordering and motives of this sentence. The National Convention had no right or authority to pronounce it. In fact, after having abolished the monarchy, the best of all governments, it had transferred all the public power to the people-the people which, guided neither by reason nor by counsels, forms just ideas on no point whatsoever, assesses few things in accordance with the truth and evaluates a great many according to mere opinion, which is ever fickle, and ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess, ungrateful, arrogant, and cruel.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that monarchy is the best form of government because it ensures peace: "The best government of a multitude is rule by one, and this is clear from the purpose of government, which is peace; for the peace and unity of his subjects are the purpose of the one who rules, and one is a better constituted cause of unity than many." [2]

Another doctor of the Church-Saint Robert Bellarmine-also taught that monarchy is the best form of government in his book On the Roman Pontiff, in the chapter titled "The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Monarchy of the Roman Pontiff." [3] In it he analyzes the forms of government as such, weighing their advantages and disadvantages, and concludes that the best one in thesis is monarchy. He then goes on to ask what form of government-aristocratic, democratic, or monarchic-would be most fitting for the Church. After a careful analysis he concludes that it is monarchy:

"If monarchy is the best and most excellent government, as above we have shown, and it is certain that the Church of God, instituted by the most sapient prince of Christ, ought to [be] best governed, who can deny that the government of it ought to be a monarchy?" [4]

[3] St. Robert Bellarmine, in Bellarmine Extracts on Politics and Government from the Supreme Pontiff from Third General Controversy, George Albert Moore, Trans., Ed. (Chevy Chase, Md: The Country Dollar Press, undated).

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of The Weaker Vessel. It has been reprinted here with the permission of the author Carolyn Fusina.

​Muslim immigration into Europe and to a lesser degree North America is the focus of the new populist, nationalist political movement which has gained momentum in the last several years. An appeal to the defense of Europe’s “Christian heritage” is part of the movement’s platform.

Nigel Farage wrote in an introduction to UKIP’s 2015 “Christian Manifesto”: “We need a much more muscular defense of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution. Ours is fundamentally a Christian nation…” [i]

Leaders in the movement in what were once Catholic countries have made similar comments. Sebastian Kurz said in a television interview, “What has shaped Europe, what has shaped Austria? We have a culture shaped by our Judeo-Christian heritage and the Enlightenment – and this culture needs protecting…” [ii]Marine Le Pen said at a rally back in 2012, “The principles we fight for are engraved in our national motto: liberty, equality, fraternity…That stems from the principles of secularization resulting from a Christian heritage.” [iii]

Le Pen and Kurz speak in contradictions rather than about the truth of European history. Such statements about acknowledging and protecting Europe’s “Christian heritage” are political slogans based on vague sentiments, and when you scratch the surface, they fall apart. Underneath the sloganeering these politicians may have a nagging intuition about the truth, but instead of exploring this intuition, they stick to the safety of their political platform.

For example, when figures in the movement refer to Europe’s “Christian roots” are they referring to Protestantism or Catholicism? For these are two very different things. As any Catholic worth his salt knows, Protestantism is a heresy. Protestants left the Church. Protestantism is essentially a revolt against Catholicism.

In addition to Protestantism there is another revolt against the Catholic Church, enabled by Freemasonry—Enlightenment rationalism. The liberal values bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment—liberty, equality, fraternity—are most certainly not part of Europe’s true Christian heritage. They are anti-Catholic, and therefore anti-Christian.

Europe before the Protestant Revolt was Catholic. It was not a perfect society, but it can be said of it, as Pope Leo XIII did in 1891 in Rerum Novarum when referring to the 12th and 13th centuries, the “Golden Age of Christianity”:

…civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions… in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay… it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be.[iv]

A spirit of Revolution[v]was born following the Middle Ages, beginning with the Protestant Revolt and followed by the Enlightenment, and was specifically carried out in the French Revolution. How does this relate to our situation today with a new batch of Muslim hordes invading Europe?

The Revolutionary spirit seeks to do away with the old Catholic order, and the crisis of man and of civilization that we face today in the West is merely a continuation of this rejection of God and His Church. The current Muslim invasion is occurring because we rejected the authority of Christ over our lives and nations and embraced the man-centred, morally decadent values of liberalism. In short, our current troubles can be traced back to the French Revolution and the Freemasonic enterprise that enabled it.

Meanwhile, European politicians on the Right speak of Europe’s “Christian heritage.” Such confused ideas about history and religion are problematic because they will keep us from solving the essential crisis of our time. The real threat to Europe is not globalization and islamization, these are recent developments that have emerged late in our journey to self-destruction (although of course Muslims have invaded Europe in the past). The real threat is our moral decadence defined by our rejection of Christ and the authority of His Church.

The great crisis of our time, building up over centuries (not since George Soros began manipulating everything), is a spiritual crisis which politics—no matter how hard it courts the Christian vote or pays homage to the “Christian heritage” of Europe—can solve. Our crisis is spiritual.In what was a ridiculous statement for a Catholic to make, that of wanting to protect both his country’s Christian and Enlightenment culture, Kurz revealed the contradiction of the movement, and the reason it will fail. Liberty, equality and fraternity are not part of the Christian heritage of France. They are opposed to it. The Enlightenment is opposed to Catholicism—it wants to destroy it.

Le Pen similarly spoke of a mix of the Enlightenment and Christianity as France’s Christian heritage. This simply does not wash. Le Pen only wants her followers to have a “sense” of Europe’s Christian identity or the Catholic roots of France because she thinks it will help stem the tide of globalization and islamization. She is a liberal, however, and doesn’t really want religion to play a serious role in the life of France. Christianity, however, is not a cultural identity, but a religion with certain Truths that will not go away no matter how intently we have piled on the layers of liberal ideology.

The foundation of liberalism is a false idea of man’s freedom. The liberty of the Revolution is not the freedom of Christianity which is only found in man directing his will to obey God, but is license to do what one wants. Implicit in liberalism’s notion of freedom is man’s independence from God and His Church, the Catholic Church.

This is the source of our moral decadence—our independence from God. We are morally decadent because individuals and nations do not submit His Sovereign rule.

The most important development in the degradation of the West is not the 1960s sexual revolution, contrary to what the “Religious Right” in America thinks, nor the globalizing and islamizing effects of the European Union or George Soros’ evil empire. It is the idea of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the French Revolution and the American Revolution. It was brought on by a hatred of the Catholic Church and is essentially a denial that She is the one, true Church that has apostolic authority to teach and govern man. The Revolutionary spirit desires to see the Church gutted by spreading the heresy that all religions are equal and the Catholic Faith is not the one, true Faith. Subsequently, the peoples of democratic, western countries must have the right to “religious freedom”—the freedom to practice the religion of their choice.

The imposition of religious liberty onto the social order was the first step in our moral decline, because it emasculated the Catholic Church’s role as moral guide. It left man’s moral life to his own conscience, informed not by a Catholic social order that he could not escape or ignore, but by his personal choice to attend church on Sunday and to attend the church of his choice. Later, he would choose to not attend church at all.

The “moral decadence” referred to here, however, does not mean a decrease in professing Christians, or a morally lax society accepting of pornography, abortion, divorce, contraception, etc. These are signs of it, or symptoms. What is meant by “moral decadence” here is our disordered way of life that begins with not acknowledging the Kingship of Christ and his rule over individuals and nations.

The West looked on in dismay as the May 2017 terrorist attack at Manchester arena unfolded. The media made a point of mentioning one of the victims of the attack was an 8-year-old girl. Several other victims were under 16 years of age. These children were twice victims, however: they were the victims of the terrorist attack, but they were also victims of a degenerate culture, one in which children attend Ariana Grande concerts, with the approval of parents that consist of pornography in the guise of music. Grande’s performances and “music” are more than a little sexually suggestive. Why was an 8-year-old, or any sane person for that matter, attending this sleaze-fest? Why did her mother take her to the concert? Why is such an act as Ariana Grande allowed to perform in the first place?

Is this degenerate, hyper-sexualized culture what Farage and Le Pen want to defend? Because Ariana Grande is, for the most part, typical of today’s culture in the West. It is one big sleaze-fest.

It’s no secret that Islam views the West as morally decadent and therefore weakened and therefore penetrable. Yet, we continue to shore up the decadent moral values of Godless liberalism that brought on the decadence and weakness in the first place.

Anti-immigration parties and policies, if they succeed in Europe, might stem the tide of Muslim immigration, but would not stop the Tsunami of moral decadence that is at the heart of the decay of Western civilization. If the Right got what it wants and George Soros was stymied in his evil, globalist agenda, and immigration policies in Europe and North America became anti-Muslim, all this would not undo the course of decay and self-destruction that predates the globalist agenda and the influx of Muslims into Western democracies.

We’re going down. If it is by the sword of the infidel, this simply is the last nail in the coffin we climbed into ourselves because we are morally sick to death.

The cure for our spiritual sickness cannot be found in the current populist, nationalist movement. A spiritual sickness calls for a spiritual cure. And by “spiritual sickness” I do not mean that individual men are sick in their souls, although that too is the case—I mean nations are sick because of their rejection of Christ as King.

Nations are governed by Christ whether they acknowledge it or not. Christ is King from whom all authority to rule is granted. Only acknowledging this ultimate reality will keep us from the death that is so close.

Both men and nations have made themselves independent of God; this is what liberalism is in all its manifestations—political, economic and social. Man has become his own authority, his own god. The insanity and chaos of our time is the result of claiming for so long, without repentance, that God does not exist as He does.

A true spiritual cure can only come from the true Church, the Catholic Church. This cure involves realizing religious liberty is a heresy. The State has the duty to profess the Catholic Faith, since it is the one, true Faith. Religious toleration, therefore, is shown toward non-Catholics, but it is only toleration. Non-Catholics can practice their religion in private, but Catholicism is the religion of the State and the head of the State is subject to the authority of the Church.

Under this system, there would be no political sloganeering as the Muslims stream in. In a Catholic social order there would be no Ariana Grande concerts.

But we in the West so worship the idea of religious liberty in our utopian visions of a pluralistic, democratic state, that such a Catholic system is anathema to “rational” man. But how “rational” is it to avoid an oncoming fireball by pouring kerosene on oneself? Liberalism made us weak so let’s stand up for those liberal values?

The Muslims have told us they enter in upon our moral decadence—why do we not repent of that decadence to the one true Judge of this world? No, “rational” man simply steeps himself in more liberty, more “rights,” more material riches and fleeting pleasures, all the while relegating the Faith to the private sphere where it can hold no sway.

The West was dying long before the globalist agenda arrived on the scene, before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, before the infidel influx on our shores. These are not the problem. We are the problem. We raised up liberal values to be worshipped in our parliaments. We did it—conservatives and liberals alike.

It wouldn’t matter if there was 1 Muslim or 1 million among us. Ours is a spiritual sickness that no Muslim has inflicted upon us. We did it to ourselves.

There is only one thing that can save us—and it is far from the minds of any politician in the West. It is the acknowledgment of a little-known, all-important truth: Christ has sovereignty over all people and nations. He is King. All authority to govern descends from Him (not, “the people”). His Church, the Catholic Church, is the one true Church, and therefore there can be no religious liberty because it is a denial of this fact.

This is not a question of a vague “reclaiming our European religious heritage” or saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” or defending bakers from having to bake cakes for “gay weddings.” These things are all done while affirming that religion is a private matter.

Only when the Social Kingship of Christ is proclaimed by a country will that country be armed to defeat its enemy. Only when religious liberty is shown to be the heretical proposition it is, will we find ourselves on the right course.

For now, misguided right-wing politicians and pundits continue to promote the contradictory ideas of the false resistance.

******************************

Conservative commentators speak of the end of liberalism or the failure of liberalism.[vi]What we are witnessing at this time in the rage and degradation around us is the dissatisfaction with and despair over what liberalism has wrought for us. Liberalism is an ideology built on pride and rejection of God that came out of certain “enlightened” men’s minds in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is an ideology built on the intellect turning away from God to the self. It lies now like a great, global garbage heap with the corpses of innocent unborn children strewn all about it.

The political Right has some intuition about this, but can’t let go of its political machinations and aspirations to fully grasp we are experiencing a spiritual crisis, not a political one.

These problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union, nor will they be solved by exit from the Union.They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action.[vii]

A “religious revival?” Well, if Britain was to truly revive religion and go back to its Christian roots, it would become Catholic, for England was a Catholic country before Henry VIII infamously broke away from the Church, paving the way for Protestantism.

Europe’s “Christian heritage?” Europe’s Christian roots are the Catholic Church and medieval Christendom, which began with the conversion of King Clovis to Catholicism in 496.

Our crisis was begun and is perpetuated by man refusing to submit to God and His Church. The garbage can only be cleared away by submitting once again. We need fearless garbage men now, to burn away the garbage with the fire of their zeal for subjection—and above all, men willing to do penance for the slaughter of the innocents by placing themselves and their nations completely under the sovereign Kingship of Christ our Lord.——————————————————————--

[v] “Revolution” here does not refer to a specific revolutionary event but to the slow and violent sweeping away of the Christian social order, starting in the late Middle Ages. The Protestant Revolt, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution are all specific revolutionary events that are part of the overall “Revolution.” The Revolutionary spirit is characterized by anti-Catholicism and the worship of “liberty” (a.k.a. license). Under the Revolutionary order the rights of man usurp the rights of God. See Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira for more on this topic.

[vi] See, for example, Patrick Buchanan’s column of October 20, 2017, titled, Is Liberalism a Dying Faith?, in which Buchanan can’t seem to shake the mindset that everything was okay before the 1960s.